Mythbusters

In a recent conversation I had with someone, the topic of Mythbusters came up.  If I remember correctly, the subject of Daddy Long Legs had come up, and we wound up discussing if they could bite people.  I mentioned that I thought a Mythbusters episode had proved they could.  The conversation quickly swung around to whether or not Mythbusters was "good science."

I've loved the show since the first time I watched it, but the question remains...is Mythbusters a reliable source for "science" or just for entertainment?


Now celebrating their tenth year on the air, I suppose the only way this article would be more timely was if I posted it when their anniversary special aired.  But oh, well.  I think I was talking about life on other planets or something that day.

So, I guess the first thing to discuss is exactly what science is.  Let's bring out the dictionary.

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

I really like this definition, but it isn't quite complete.  Science is about solving problems (read: questions) about the natural world.  Science doesn't deal with the supernatural.  Science doesn't deal with faith or religion.  Science doesn't even deal in "facts" or "truths.". Facts and truths can be interpreted differently by different people.

If I had to summarize science to someone, I'd describe it as "Does <noun> <verb>?"  Maybe, maybe I'd allow a "if yes or no, then why?"  But that tends to just become smaller versions of "does <noun> <verb>?"  Once  we've established connections between nouns doing verbs, we can establish cause and effect, and that leads to knowledge.

At its core, Mythbusters twists the question sometimes from "does" to "can."  But the core theme is still there since they have an idea and do experiments to test the theory.  Are they quality experiments?  Well, not always.  Sometimes they're limited by their budget, sometimes by a time frame, sometimes by laws and permits, and there's the fact that 40,000 samples being reviewed can make for boring television.


But, they still count as experiments, and if a kid doing one sample can count as a "science experiment" then there's no reason the show can't as well.

I will point out that the show does cover a lot of the bases for a proper experiment.  When something needs to be compared to something else, they usually have a control alongside the experiment (a recent episode about the best way to dry hands had multiple controls).  They do their best to not let outside influences affect the experiment (and if it does, they consult an expert to figure out how invalid the results might be).

So, taking an idea (frequently with no preconceived notions of what the results are, as trying to shape results to prove a theory is "pseudoscience") and testing it...sounds like science to me.  But unfortunately, I can't really prove it qualifies because there's no universal standard to test it against.  In fact, I always loved that you can't prove something is "science" using science, because there's no natural universal measurements you can make.  

But, for me, the most important thing about Mythbusters is the fact that it makes people talk.  Check out the message boards sometimes and you'll find lengthy debates about the results of the show, from people saying they did it wrong because the experiment didn't work to those who argue they did it wrong because the experiment did work.

I mean, I got into a debate about the show at work, and I've heard other people reference it in every day conversation.  In a way, I think Mythbusters has done more for intelligent discussion than most things in the past decade.  It doesn't rely on celebrity, on sensationalism, or the lowest denominator to draw in viewers.

Of course, lots of explosions doesn't hurt, but hey, that's SCIENCE!